From f739e976e433357b5617a9a82d49a248c0c9a152 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "C. Titus Brown" Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:53:38 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] updated with varsha's advice --- 2014-citations.rst => src/2014-citations.rst | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) rename 2014-citations.rst => src/2014-citations.rst (93%) diff --git a/2014-citations.rst b/src/2014-citations.rst similarity index 93% rename from 2014-citations.rst rename to src/2014-citations.rst index 51f6e9e..6e6d12f 100644 --- a/2014-citations.rst +++ b/src/2014-citations.rst @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ necessarily the same people as the developers and maintainers of our software implementation, and we'd like to reward both appropriately with citations. +Additionally, for things like tenure and promotion and grants, often +it is the case that only peer reviewed articles count. In this case, +having citations accrue to those articles is a good idea! + So, rather than directly citing our tarballs or repositories (see `F1000 Research `__ @@ -123,7 +127,9 @@ a great improvement to me ;). So my thought here is that any tool that uses a research algorithm or data structure developed by others should output citation information -for that other work. +for that other work. This follows the advice given by Sarah Callaghan +to `"cite what you use" +`__. A specific example we're planning: someone is porting some abandoned thesisware to khmer. The citation information will specify both khmer @@ -151,3 +157,6 @@ anyway, and (c) we should figure out what the community norms should be first...) --titus + +p.s. Thanks to Michael Crusoe and Varsha Khodiyar for reading a preview +of this blog post and giving me feedback! \ No newline at end of file